dom of the theologian! We would that there were a thousandfold more independence in the search of truth—and that so many hundreds were not enslaved by the prejudice of novelty, whilst they clamour against the prejudice of authority and antiquity. To the objection, under this new phase, we reply: the only possible method of making the labours of past theologians available and profitable to the tyro, is by presenting to him the fruits of these labours in some compendious form. In every other case, the learner is despoiled of all the aids afforded by superior wisdom and learning, and reduced to the condition of one who has to build the whole structure for himself from the very foundation. But it is rejoined, "The Bible is the text-book: Theology is to be pursued exegetically; let the student, with his hermeneutical apparatus, come to the investigation of the Bible itself, to the neglect of all systems of human composition." Again we reply, that in correspondence with the analogy above suggested, exegesis is the true instrument of discovery, and the test of all pretended results. It may be compared to the glasses and quadrant of the astronomer. But is this all that is afforded to the inchoate astronomer? Let the analogy be pursued. We suppose a professor in this new school of physics to say to his pupil, "Here are your telescopes and other instruments, your logarithmic tables and ephemeris-yonder is the observatory. Proceed to make your observations. Be independent and original in your inquiries, and cautious in your inductions. You are not to be informed whether the sun moves around the earth, or the earth around the sun. This would be to prepossess you in favour of a system. Ptolemy and Copernicus are alike to be forgotten!" What is our estimate of such a method of philosophizing? The unfortunate youth is not permitted to take a glance at Newton's Principia, lest his mind should librate from its exact poise, towards some preconceived opinion. He is reduced to the very condition of the thousands who grope in disastrous twilight, for want of direction. He is called upon to be a Galileo without his powers, or a Kepler without his previous training.

To an unprejudiced mind it must commend itself as reasonable, that the beginner in any science should be furnished at least with some syllabus of its details, which may serve as a clew in the labyrinth of his doubts. In order to discover truth, it is not the safest nor the wisest plan to reduce the mind to the unenviable condition of a tabula rasa; although

such is the assumption of certain modern writers. It is highly useful to be informed as well of what has been held to be true, as of what has been proved to be false. For lack of the latter knowledge-the knowledge of preceding errors -our improved theologians are daily venting, with all the grave self-consequence of discovery, the stale and exploded blunders of the dark ages; which the perusal of any single work of systematic divinity would have taught them to despise. The impartiality of the mind is in no degree secured by the banishment of all previous hypotheses. There is a partiality of ignorance, a partiality of self-will and intellectual pride, a partiality of innovation, no less dangerous than the predilections of system. Or, to bring the whole matter to a speedier issue, the condition of mind in equilibrio, which it is proposed to secure, is utterly impossible the merest ens rationis -which was never realized, and never can be realized by any one in a Christian country. It is like the chimerical scepticism of the Cartesians, the creature of an overheated imagination. For when you have carefully withheld all orthodox systems of theology from your pupil, he comes to the study of the Scriptures, emptied indeed of all coherent hypotheses, but teeming with the crude and erroneous views which spring up like weeds in the unregulated mind.

The true light in which a system of theology should be viewed by one who uses it as an aid in scriptural study, is as a simple hypothesis, an approximation to the truth, and a directory for future inquiries. Every position is to become the subject of a sifting examination, and comparison with what is revealed. Without some such assistance, in the mind, or in writing, the student might spend a life-time in arriving at some of those principles, which, if once proposed to him, would commend themselves instantly to his approbation.

But it is queried: "What if your system should be false?" Let us then go so far as to suppose that it is false. It would be no very difficult task to prove that, for this purpose, even a false system, if scientifically arranged, might not be without its uses. Every one who commences the study of the Scriptures, does so with some system, true or false, symmetrical or crude, written or conceived. If he is influenced by no living idols in the world of theologians, and bows to no Calvin nor Arminius, he has within him those causes of error which spring from his own character and education, (or to use Ba

con's expressive terms) idola specus et fori, if not idola theatri.* When Kepler began his observations, he no doubt held the old erroneous doctrine of the sphere; but in the progress of inquiry he discovered such irregularity in the orbit. of Mars, as was altogether incompatible with a circular motion. Hence he arrived at the truth that all the planetary orbits are elliptical. In this we have an example of a fact impinging upon a system, and causing it to be abandoned. The same thing may be instanced in the case of Martin Luther. It may not be too much to say, that if they had been ignorant of the opinions of their fathers, and had practised upon the rule above-mentioned, their names would never have come down to us. But all this is gratuitous. We are not bound to prove that an erroneous system may have its uses. We put into the hand of the pupil, the nearest approximation to truth, which we can procure, even that which we cordially believe ourselves; and then, to add new guards to the mind, we exhort him to use it simply as a history of what the Church has held; leaving it to his judgment whether it is consistent with the Scriptures. It is the method in which the study of all sciences must be begun; and as all lectures in theology are systems-indeed no other systems are enjoined to be studied in our seminaries-it is in accordance with this very method that candidates for the ministry are every where instructed. There may be a time, at some later period, when a method purely analytic may be attempted; but no man is competent to institute such an analysis, until he has mastered the leading hypotheses of those who have gone before him: and about one theologian in a thousand has the taste for investigations of this kind.

It is not a little surprising that the very persons whose delicate susceptibilities lead them to shrink from the contact of an orthodox system or exposition, lest they should receive some undue bias, are at the same time under no apprehensions from the contagion of German neology. There are, for instance, ministers of our acquaintance who avowedly banish from their shelves the works of Turretine, Scott, and Henry, but who daily refer to the innocuous commentaries of Rosenmueller, Kuinöl, Koppe, and Gesenius. Is it so then, that the only partialities against which we need a caution, are towards what is called orthodoxy-the system of doctrines to

* Nov. Org. Lib. i. Aph. 41.

which we have subscribed? Are there no vicious leanings of the mind in favour of plausible heresies, lofty rationalism, or imposing novelty? Let him answer who has learned the de

ceitfulness of the human heart.

If systems of theology are assailed upon the ground that they have usurped the place and authority of the sacred canon, we leave our opponents to try the issue with those who are guilty of the offence. We are conscious of no such wish. The formularies of our Church have borne many violent assaults; and, in their turn, all doctrinal works which coincide with them have been denounced. We have no hesitation in "postponing the Confession of Faith to the Holy Scriptures."* If systems of divinity have been raised to a co-ordinate rank with the Word of God, let those answer for it, who are guilty of the impiety. The books themselves are chargeable with no part of it, since they unanimously declare that the Bible only is the standard of faith. Yet shall we deny to any the liberty of making any scheme of doctrine his own confession of faith? No constraint has been used to bring any man to such a declaration; nor have we heard of any man who has been required to conform himself to such a system, unless he had previously, of his own free will, confessed it to be a statement of his faith. We may, therefore, dismiss the cavil, as scarcely pertaining to this inquiry.

In view of the absolute impracticability of the visionary scheme now controverted, and the absence of any attempted exemplification of it, we are constrained to look somewhat further for the secret cause of the clamour against systematic theology. And when we regard the quarter from which it issues, we are convinced, that the real objection is, not that systems are exceptionable qua tales, but that doctrine is systematized on the wrong side. Systematized heterodoxy is attacked upon its own merits; systematized orthodoxy is opposed because of its form and arrangements. The great

standard works in this department are the results of labour, the monuments of tried doctrine; while the ephemeral fabrics of innovators do not live long enough to assume a regular shape. Hinc illæ lachrymæ! When the late Robert Hall was arraigned by a certain loyalist, as having written in favour of parliamentary reform, he replied, in terms not inapplicable to this subject: "The plain state of the case is, not

* See Rev. E. Irving's late Letter in Frazer's Magazine.

that the writer is offended at my meddling with politics, but that I have meddled on the wrong side. Had the same mediocrity of talent been exerted in eulogizing the measures of ministry, his greetings would have been as loud as his invective is bitter." If the system is false, let this be made to appear, let its errors be exposed-but until this is done, let no arrangement of divine truth be decried as injurious. In conclusion, we apprehend no evils to our rising theologians from scholastic systems, for the best of all reasons-they know nothing of them. The literature of the day has extended its influence to the domain of theology, and the weekly, monthly, and quarterly receptacles of religious discussion, consume too much of our attention, to leave opportunity for poring over the works of our ancestors.

ART. IV.-ARABIC AND PERSIAN LEXICOGRAPHY. A Dictionary Persian, Arabic, and English, with a dissertation on the language, literature, and manners of eastern nations. By John Richardson, Esq. F. S. A., of the Middle Temple, and of Wadham College, Oxford. Revised and improved by Charles Wilkins, Esq. LL. D. F. R. S. A new edition, considerably enlarged by Francis Johnson. London, 1829, quarto.

A TRULY Splendid specimen of British typography, and an invaluable addition to the apparatus of the Oriental scholar. Richardson's Dictionary has been long known to the public. The original form was folio. The quarto edition of 1806 was superintended by the famous Orientalist, Charles Wilkins, who added twenty thousand Persian words from native dictionaries, reformed the orthography, and had type cast under his own inspection. There can be no doubt, that the work received immense improvement by passing through his hands. Richardson was a laborious compiler-Wilkins a philological genius and a finished scholar, who takes precedence of Jones, in point of general depth and accuracy, as well as of chronological priority in Sanscrit learning. In his edition of Richardson, however, he betrayed one weakness. He applied to that vast work his awkward plan for representing